"Walter Herrmann was great. Once again, I say with him, don't just look at the shots that he's making. He's going to make shots for us, but he does a lot of other things out on that court that we need," coach Michael Curry said. "His one-on-one defense and team help, and his ability to move the basketball offensively ... your offense seems to flow when he's out on the court because he doesn't hold the basketball."

Because small creates more open shots. Generally your 'small' players are better shooters and faster. they can move quickly and pass the ball a lot to find the open man. Not to mention on the defensive end smaller players will disallow any fastbreaks and cause more steals. Even matchups are key.

Click to expand...

So if the opponent is going small and they have the talent to execute it successfully, and your team plays with a different style that gets disrupted by successful small ball, then you have to go small to counter it? For instance if your transition D isn't quick enough to counter their fastbreaks? If so, what are some example characteristics of a style that is easily disrupted by small ball?

The great thing is that Walt is depth. And lee's concerns about speed are limited IMO. As long as Walt can effectively funnel his man to help, and use the sidelines as second and third defenders, he will be fine.

And I think he will be fine. Walt is probably our second most experienced backup after Dice. The guy may not be a big time NBAer, but he has been an important part of the Argentine squad.

Because small creates more open shots. Generally your 'small' players are better shooters and faster. they can move quickly and pass the ball a lot to find the open man. Not to mention on the defensive end smaller players will disallow any fastbreaks and cause more steals. Even matchups are key. .

Click to expand...

Thanks for replying. I understand the advantages of small ball. What I don't understand is why they appear to trump the advantages of other "sizes". Basically, if I'm understanding you correctly, I'm led to think that teams waste their money on big, not very quick post players and that everyone would do better going small and it would just be the best small ball team that would win. But if that's the case, then how is that the Lakers or Heat (w/Shaq) or the Spurs (with Duncan) have had so much success. Why didn't teams just go small on them? Or if they did, why didn't it work? Are there any circumstances in which the best response to a team going small would NOT be to go small to match them?

Right now from watching the first two games this team looks and feels really different from years past. I think this is a good thing. I can really tell that the chemistry is just not quite there yet - hopefully, this will even itself out as the coaching staff / players get used to the new line-up, players, and rotation.

On a side note, when did Dyess get so old. I know he has always had slow starts, but he looks like a fringe rotation guy right now. At least Curry doesn't automatically put him in. I don't think we should abandon him because there are those games when he is lights out, but if not his minutes should go somewhere else.

SHEED..........6 block shots and nice controlled emotion out there. Turn around baseline J is unstoppable because u cant guard him from out of bounds

HERRMANN......the key was the emotion he brought to a dead (as usual) Palace crowd. Very comfortable with the jumper off CB's feeds. What we basically did was trade Herrmann for Evans or Hayes. Looking forward to his 15 MPG this year. Hey, any body wanna join the Walter fan club? My name: HERRMANN'S MONSTERS!:D

BROWN...........8 POINTS ON 4 OF 4 IN 8 MINUTES. cant grade any worse. I liked not playing him in 2nd half. Break him in slowly. And the dude IS big.

B:

HAMILTON.........Jumper had nice spin to it. Everything was pure net. Characteristic TO's, but at least he was forcing the action. Defense made Stephenson a non factor(0 assists)

AFFLALO......Did his thang...tough flagrant foul finish

C:

BILLUPS........Controlled offense, but defense was awful

MAXIEL......tough inside, defense was not great, need more touches on o

STUCKEY.....couple of nice slashes inside, too sloppy on D, did not run offense well

PRINCE.........nice to see him not running his one on one offense all game

BROWN...........8 POINTS ON 4 OF 4 IN 8 MINUTES. cant grade any worse. I liked not playing him in 2nd half. Break him in slowly. And the dude IS big.

B:

AFFLALO......Did his thang...tough flagrant foul finish

D:

McDYESS.......looking so old on defense, se ya in January dice

Click to expand...

Agree with the grades, especially for Dice. I would have like to have seen Kwame make an appearance in the second half. Former players like showing off against their former teams. Plus he needed to be rewarded for his output in the first half.

I may have given Aflollo an incomplete, as I did not see him do that much in his 3+ mins of play

Thanks for replying. I understand the advantages of small ball. What I don't understand is why they appear to trump the advantages of other "sizes". Basically, if I'm understanding you correctly, I'm led to think that teams waste their money on big, not very quick post players and that everyone would do better going small and it would just be the best small ball team that would win. But if that's the case, then how is that the Lakers or Heat (w/Shaq) or the Spurs (with Duncan) have had so much success. Why didn't teams just go small on them? Or if they did, why didn't it work? Are there any circumstances in which the best response to a team going small would NOT be to go small to match them?

Click to expand...

I think it's because most people, by nature, are reactionary. They would rather see something happening and try to beat it by adapting than to set the tone and more or less hope (read: trust) that it works. Having someone like say...Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Olajuwon, Ewing, or Duncan make that trust part really easy because they are so good that it intimidates teams into throwing the biggest body they have out there to deal with them.

Reacting to going small is the easy way out, that way, they don't get questioned if they lose. If they stay big when the opponent goes small, they get crapped on for not seeing the light. If they get beat by going small, they have an out by saying they were matching the move their opponent made and therefore the players didn't get it done.

Lastly, it's cosmetic as well. If you have a bunch of big guys that appear to be having circles run around them by smaller quicker guys, it looks bad. To the avg observer, the quicker guys are making your big "slow" guys look bad because they are quicker and therefore are going to be able to do everything better and faster. It's kind of the "perception is reality" kind of thing.

...Are there any circumstances in which the best response to a team going small would NOT be to go small to match them?

Click to expand...

Curry said in the postgame that he would have given Kwame more minutes but the Wizards went small and he needed to match up. I'd say if the other team goes small and you can put a big on the floor good enough to hurt them then you take the lead and drive what's going on in the game. But, other than Sheed last night, who was taking a needed rest when the Pistons went small to matchup, I don't see another big on the bench who could have hurt the Wiz more than he would have hurt the Pistons by not matching well up with their smalls.

Those drives by Kwame from the three point line in the first half were pretty nice, but I'm not sure I'd count on that happening again. So, don't match small ball if you have bigs who can dominate their small lineup. But, if your bigs are too slow to keep with their smalls, then you have to match.

Not really sure what it means, but i find it interesting the difference b/w these;

Walter's +/- 0

Prince's I think was +17

Click to expand...

We started the game great defensively, going up plus 17, and barely giving any baskets up at all. We had Washington smothered to the point that the only shot they could possibly get was a half contested shot from a guy coming off a pick at the top of the key. This was not just for one or two trips down the floor, but rather most of the 1st quarter. Pistons defense was back big time. And the 3rd quarter started out about the same, with us scoring some points while Washington just wished they could buy a bucket somehow. The only players out there for us during these times: Our starters, and JMAX, all fine defenders. So why did we end up giving up just under 110 points? Our bench features Herrmann and Dyess, two slow defenders. It ain't rocket science.